This message was self-deleted by its author

[7wo7rees]

This message was self-deleted by its author (7wo7rees) on Wed Sep 22, 2021, 06:54 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[True Blue American]

1. Abbott is responsible for those whips?

The media is acting as if Biden is!

[7wo7rees]

2. I don't believe it is Biden or Abbott.I believe it is systematic racism in CBP.

The CBP are out of control.
Abbott just feeds them

Texas cops loves their horses! They are intimidating as all hell!! I rounded a corner in downtown Dallas at a protest against war in downtown Dallas and ran right into them. I was only on my way to a McDonalds for coffee for friends.I had friends protesting Exxon in Houston who were hurt by them. Most people have no idea hiw frightening it can be. Or how very dangerous.
I'll never forget the day I ran into them in downtown Dallas!!

[2naSalit]

76. Have been for a very long time.

I used to get harassed by them walking to school in rural San Diego back in the 70s, because I'm not obviously white like my birth certificate says. Some tried to talk me into having sex.

[Mr.Bill]

125. I have never spent one minute on Facebook.

My grandchildren are baffled at how I survive like this.

[Larissa]

3. Facebook was largely instrumental in the election of Donald Trump

A lot of the crap against Covid-19 vaccines comes from Facebook. Russian disinformation that favored Trump was rampant on Facebook.


https://www.thewrap.com/ken-burns-calls-mark-zuckerberg-an-enemy-of-the-state/

Historian and documentarian Ken Burns was asked about his opinion of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg by the New York Times this week and he didn’t mince words. Zuckerberg, Burns said, is “an enemy of the state” who deserves to be in jail.

[7wo7rees]

4. Whoa!! I had not heard that yet, but whole heartedly agree!!

[True Blue American]

5. I agree with Burns.

They, along with Twitter are responsible for Trump, the rise of the hate party and need to be cut down.

I had a small glimpse of just how vicious a mob could be on the net when a group went after a woman I know who had a Poetry site. It grew like mushrooms, as it went from board to board. She had to shut her Poetry site because of the attacks. All this from a single post that was not even what they said.They even tried to go after me, then deleted their post. But a Republican friend saw the post before it was deleted and defended me.

All this was before we reached the hate filled stage we are in now.

[we can do it]

9. I agree too.

But apparently there are those here who think getting flower club news is worth losing our country.

[Duppers]

6. +100

[reACTIONary]

90. The reason TFG won the election was.....

.... because of the electoral college. If we want to fix democracy, we will have to fix that.

[former9thward]

111. Anyone who says "enemy of the state" is a fan of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

They are not a fan of the Constitution which is ironic given Burns has become very rich because of it.

[EX500rider]

114. Agree with that, fairly chilling statement nt

[Beachnutt]

7. Totally agree

[EYESORE 9001]

8. Going out on a limb here...

but FB will continue to be a problem as long as people rationalize their use of the platform. Some insist they have no other way to keep up with far flung friends and relatives, others seem to be outrage junkies who must see what outrageous thing they can find - usually followed by dragging it somewhere else (like here) and asking, ‘look what some MAGAt said on FB!’

[7wo7rees]

10. Pull the plug! Shut it DOWN!!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

26. DeSantis agrees

[Treefrog]

153. How would that be accomplished?

[JI7]

11. dragging it somewhere else (like here) and asking, 'look what some MAGAt said on FB!'

THIS part . I think if people stopped using it for useless things like this it could help also.

I can kind of get those who really do use it for personal connections for family and friends and having nothing to do with politics even though there are alternatives to FB to stay connected .

But people who come here with "This trumper said %#%# , how can I respond ................. ??????" is such a waste of time. I think there are probably more of these than the above group . Especially the ones that actually think they are being useful and helping a good cause by wasting time arguing with these fools on FB.

[Sherman A1]

13. Yawn.....

[EYESORE 9001]

14. I'm glad the world is not sofa king boring to me

[Sherman A1]

17. Oh, not the world at all

Just the weekly outage posts regarding Facebook and it evilness.

[reACTIONary]

25. +100 nt

[Pinback]

15. Agree.

Many minimize FB’s toxic impact because “I know how to configure my privacy settings,” “Facebook is a great — or the only — way to (fill in the blank),” etc.

Facebook has a winning formula because it combines convenience with an addictive engagement mechanism for stimulating users’ emotional reward centers. I know several people for whom Facebook is “The Internet.”

Ripping Facebook from Americans’ fingers and shutting off that dopamine spigot would be a sure fire way to piss off a lot of Democratic voters. So, as many reasons as there are to forcefully dismantle FB, it ain’t happening anytime soon.

[blueinredohio]

16. Amen!

[Ms. Toad]

102. Pretty sure I've never dragged RW trash from there to here.

Facebook is simply a tool. Just like a knife I can use to make my salad - or to kill someone. It only has the power over you that you give it - and if you don't know how/can'tbear to restrain yourself, that's on you.

I'm no more going to give up an efficient tool that makes it easier to keep in touch with friends and relatives - and to find and communicate wtih others living with the rare diseases that we collect in our family - than I will revert to manually snapping and twisting my zucchini into bite sized pieces because the tool I use to make lie easier can also be used as a dangerous weapon.

Stop acting like a powerless victim who demands everyone else stop using a helpful tool becuase you are unable to control your own urges to use it irresponsibly.

[Sherman A1]

12. Ah, yet another Facebook bashing thread

I have no problem with service.

[7wo7rees]

18. Oh for F's Sake!!

[Sherman A1]

39. I agree

Oh for F’s sake!

[stopdiggin]

48. the intellectual equivalent of

smashing printing pressed (or textile looms)

hardly a big fan of Zuck or FB - but have we really put a lot of thought into what 'control' of these platforms and outlets looks like?

[Sherman A1]

53. Agreed

I’m no fan of Zuckerberg either, but as you said the weekly outrage post about Facebook is the equivalent of smashing the printing press.

As to your second point, it is a valid one just as is the general concern about total screen time. The devices and services are tools for us to use and potentially abuse or be abused by. Moderation and awareness are always to be taken into account.

[reACTIONary]

83. +100 nt

[reACTIONary]

19. +100 nt

[OnDoutside]

20. I use Facebook too but it is run by completely amoral people, and

Have zero intentions of deviating from pursuit of money over any semblance of corporate responsibility. This is the point where regulation should step in and regulate the shit out of them, however Facebook have a huge amount of lobbyists keeping the lid on politicians from actually doing anything.

Having an I'm alright Jack attitude is a part of where the world is today.

[Sherman A1]

40. And the weekly outrage posts are likewise part of where the world is

Today.

[OnDoutside]

57. If it can be termed outrage, I think it is understandable in light of

the glaring problems with the Facebook model, it's uncaring complicity In the attack on American democracy and the utter lack of effort by politicians to hold Facebook to account. But apart from that....

[Sherman A1]

66. Yet

I see no glaring problems with Facebook. It is a service, use it or don't.

[lagomorph777]

89. It is a service.

It serves you to the oligarchs for dinner.

[OnDoutside]

91. 50% of Americans get their news from Facebook, much of it lies

and distortion of the truth. This is much bigger than you (or myself for that matter), and if they're not sorted out, it will very much affect us in the future. Facebook are a cancer.

[Sherman A1]

93. You have your opinion

I have mine.

[Sherman A1]

94. You have a link to support the 50%

Number you cite in your post?

The news I read on Facebook doesn’t seem to be lies. Certainly every news service has a bias, but one hopefully knows that before reading an article or watching a broadcast.

[OnDoutside]

120. Yes from Forbes, here

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2019/10/11/more-americans-are-getting-their-news-from-social-media/?sh=4abcadc83e17

It isn't news that most Americans aren't reading the daily newspaper or even watching the evening news. Instead of the paper of record delivering everything from local happenings and sports scores to current events on the global stage, more and more people are turning to Facebook and Twitter.

According to a newly published Pew Research Center report 55% of U.S. adults now get their news from social media either "often" or "sometimes" – an 8% increase from last year. About three-in-ten (28%) said they get their news "often," up from 20% in 2018.

As the Pew Research's reporters noted, "social media is now a part of the news diet of an increasingly large share of the U.S. population."

Far More Than Social

The Pew Research Center's report also found that nine-in-ten (88%) of Americans also recognized that social media companies now have at least some control over the mix of the news that people see each day. About six-in-ten (62%) felt this was a problem, and said that social media companies now have far too much control over the mix of news that people see each day.


The concern over the impact that social media companies have on our daily news is very much a bipartisan issue, yet Republicans, the study found, tend to be more negative about the role social media is playing as a means of news delivery. Three-quarters (75%) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said social medias have too much control to the news people see, compared to about half (53%) of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents.

[onenote]

122. This newer Pew study contradicts your claim.

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/09/20/news-consumption-across-social-media-in-2021/

[OnDoutside]

124. As you can see from the link provided, it's not "my claim", and even from your link it says

"A little under half (48%) of U.S. adults say they get news from social media “often” or “sometimes,” a 5 percentage point decline compared with 2020". It's just being obtuse to suggest this isn't a huge problem.

[onenote]

127. Facebook is not all social media.

DU is social media. And I get news from many social media sources, including DU and FB as well as non-social media sources such as tv, cable, newspapers.

As I read the study's findings, it isn't saying that the folks surveyed get rely on social media (or any one social media site) exclusively for news.

[Sherman A1]

134. I noticed that rather quickly as well.

But somehow in some folks mind the Facebook is bad is all that matters.

[stopdiggin]

136. kinda wondered how long it would take

before somebody brought up DU - who incidentally has a main topic thread titled 'Latest Breaking News.' And gormless guppy that I am, I actually read some of the content found there.
----- --- --- -----

[ShazzieB]

156. Exactly!

Nowhere does that say 50% of people get their news from Facebook.

I'm neither a FB fan or a FB hater. It has its uses, it has its flaws. I don't care if people want to rant or rsve about it. Just please don't make shit up!

[LeftInTX]

109. No they don't

Facebook has a "feed", for which the actual facebook term is "News Feed", but can be anything from recipes, friend's posts, hobbies etc.


Also real news orgs such as the NY Times also have FB pages with article links. Also local media have their own FB pages with article links.

It's really a "feed", but facebook calls it a "news feed", but it isn't.

[OhioBlue]

143. yes, and it isn't just posts from friends or pages that you like or groups that you're in

that shows up in the "news feed." There are also tons of "suggested for you" posts and "sponsored content" posts.

I have unfollowed most "friends" that post MAGA content or continually share memes. 90% of my groups are non-political like camping, photography, wildlife, etc. The few political groups that I belong to are democrats, small, local and private. However, my "suggested for you" is mostly right-wing and disgusting with names like "Liberal Wackadoodles", "Conservative American Patriots", "The Republican Post", etc. and their feed is nothing but liberal, science, bashing memes.

I have a few boomer and gen-x friends that I unfollowed because they will post these memes dozens of times a day.

Susceptible people are bombarded with these memes and it becomes their internal narrative. Some actually think memes are news. The ideas that are planted with the memes are then backed up with shares of actual fake news sites like Breitbart, Epoch Times, etc. plus youtube videos.

[reACTIONary]

82. It's people talking to each other...

... what's the big deal?

[OnDoutside]

92. At a micro level you are absolutely right, and that's what I use it for,

just family and friends. However, on a macro level, vast numbers of Facebook users have completely tuned out of current affairs and are susceptible to believe any old shite, once it's got a strain of what seems believable in it. Facebook are not interested in the truth, just money, as much money as possible and they buy lobbyists to buy politicians, who block them being regulated so they can continue to take in the money from every despicable source who are willing to pay.

[RestoRay]

128. How is that any different from people telling each other rumors on the phone?

People talk all the time about things they know nothing about. Why is Facebook different than people talking in a bar?

[OnDoutside]

145. How big is your local bar ? Facebook has 2.85 Billion users, where

they can influence what content you see because they know you better than you know yourself, depending on who's paying them of course.

It's a bit of a difference.

[uponit7771]

35. What part of the OP is not true? Bashing would be exaggerating or lying about negatives. tia

[NurseJackie]

74. I know. It's ridiculous, isn't it?

Ah, yet another Facebook bashing thread

I know. It's ridiculous, isn't it?

I have no problem with service.

Neither do I.

[Sherman A1]

75. Indeed it is as we have discussed during some of the previous

facebook bashing threads.

[NurseJackie]

79. One may as well ask: Why can't we pull the plug on THE INTERNET?

One may as well ask: "Why can't we pull the plug on THE INTERNET? Misinformation at large. Why is this still being allowed?"

I can sympathize with other people's frustrations and damn-near emotional breakdowns. It's very frustrating. But I think it's a mistake to look for "simple solutions" that actually solve nothing. Just as it's a mistake to search for scapegoats and to blame things that are only symptoms, not causes.

In those instances, and for those individuals (some of whom I've known personally) I've always recommended that they just step away from the computer, or the newspaper, or the nonstop cable-news... and take a breather.

All I'm trying to say is that I know how hard it is for me to think clearly when I'm in the middle of crisis, so I imagine it's probably the same for others. And it's always been helpful to temporarily remove myself from the situation (or to allow myself to breathe and relax and contemplate the best solutions) rather than to lash out in anger.

[Voltaire2]

107. Facebook quid pro quo with Trump admin.

Agreed to promote rightwing agenda in exchange for no regulatory action against Facebook.

Is that toxic enough?

[Sherman A1]

112. Don't like it

Don’t use it.

[reACTIONary]

21. I Liked a FB Post....

.... And Western Civilization crumbled to dust. Sad.

[7wo7rees]

22. I now know why yesterday a DU,'er, Atticus, took a break.

[gab13by13]

38. Exactly,

Atticus wrote the truth and the truth sometimes is inconvenient.

[Treefrog]

64. Are you unhappy because people are disagreeing with you?

It’s a discussion board.

[reACTIONary]

23. Here is DU's FB page....

https://www.facebook.com/democraticunderground

Enjoy!

[Budi]

33. 👍 DU HAS A FACEBOOK PAGE TOO!

Well what the heck.

[ChazII]

65. A new place to visit

when I am on Facebook. Thank you.

[Buckeyeblue]

24. I left FB in 2012 because of the shit allowed to be posted about Obama

This is how the Republic slow simmers to a dry pan. Hate groups get to invent their own facts, about everything. And then claim they are sitting at the right hand of god. But now they have a wide audience.

In another time, these freaks would mostly keep to themselves. They'd occasionally call late night radio with their kooky theories of this or that. But they could be contained.

FB, and technology in general, gives them an outlet. Their tales, their lies, are just speculative science fiction. And like most science fiction, the stories are lazy, poorly written, the internal links to their arguments are missing, and yet millions continue to eat this shit up.

It'll be interesting to see how this ends. I think the right will end up destroying itself, will break apart into different extremist groups. But the rest of us will have to suffer while this happens.

[scarytomcat]

45. I too think the right is destroying itself but

not until people wake-up and start thinking for themselves will FB and the media change.
Regulation can only go so far. Big money in politics is fueling most of the real "fake news". Until people realize that the very very rich are manipulating them and control our elections and government will anything change unfortunately people don't care. When it all collapses they will just stand there and say "what the fuck". Destruction is at hand.

[Buckeyeblue]

77. I agree. If it wasn't Facebook it would be something else

I remember in the 90's listening to Art Bell's crazy shows. Some of the science conspiracy stuff was laughable. Until you realized that people really believed that shit. Then it becomes spooky. And now here we are today.

Science and good logic will always win. But the path to victory can be ugly.

[betsuni]

27. But what do you mean by "Why is this still being allowed?"

[stopdiggin]

137. yep. dig down a little bit ..

Just exactly what should be 'allowed?" And who does the 'allowing?'

[Scrivener7]

28. Because some people will be inconvenienced if we remove this very credible threat to American

Democracy.

And they just aren't willing to be inconvenienced.

That's where we are.

[reACTIONary]

84. Yes, that first amendment is all about....

... protecting our conveniences. NOT. Its about freedom. And if you weren't aware of it, without the freedom to speak, and to speak back, there is no authentic democracy.

[Scrivener7]

110. You seem to be angrily reacting to something I didn't say.

Or are you saying that Facebook is your "Liberteh"?

Not at all clear where you are coming from here.

[reACTIONary]

119. Sorry to have given you the impression...

... that I am angry.

Maybe I misunderstood you. You did mention removing "this credible threat to democracy", and that, I take it, is Facebook. How do you propose to remove it? And how would it's removal be anything other than a violation of the first amendment?

FYI, freedom of speech is pretty much fundamental to freedom in general, and is particularly important to any sort of authentic democracy. And I do believe Facebook facilitates free speech.

[Scrivener7]

121. That's where we disagree. I think Facebook facilitates an algorithm of extremism.

It does that because radicalizing people and fomenting division increases its profits.

That's a far way from free speech.

And I really don't think it's a violation of free speech to regulate things like the psychological manipulation of Facebook customers that the company perpetrated with Cambridge Analytica. And I think if anyone thinks that was a one-off, I have a bridge to sell them.

Facebook is a monopoly of sorts. It needs to be regulated just like any other monopoly.

[reACTIONary]

129. Unfortunately free speach in and of itself....

... no Facebook needed... is quite capable of radicalizing people and formatting division. It also makes possible understanding and reconciliation. And it is not possible to separate the two.

And who is it that you think is going to be doing the regulating? Who is going to decide who is and who isn't being psychologically manipulated? You? Me? Our compatriots here on DU? Nope. Don't count on it. To the contrary, we will be the suppressed, not the suppressors.

[Scrivener7]

130. It isn't possible to separate psychological manipulation and understanding and reconciliation?

OK. That's just nuts.

[reACTIONary]

131. No, it isn't ...

... When we express opinions and explain ourselves to one another, the outcome is indeterminate and may create division or reconciliation.

And "psychological manipulation" is just a pejorative term for persuasion.

[Scrivener7]

147. So you don't know about what Cambridge Analytica did? I really suggest you read about it.

And understand that they are not the only ones doing it.

[reACTIONary]

151. I have read about it. They paid people to ...

... take a personality test, then they used that and other demographic information to target them with political ads. Big deal.

According to what I've read, much of the demographic data was stolen from Facebook. So, that's some sort of privacy and or contractual issue. Not a free speech issue.

They also hyped their service to political operatives as some sort of advanced mind control capability. In other words, they defrauded them. Not the right thing to do, certainly, but I can't think of a more deserving bunch of suckers.

This whole facebook / mind control paranoia is just the latest trending moral panic.

[Scrivener7]

152. So you haven't actually read about it. Because your description is not even close.

And when you DO read about it, if your mind isn't blown, there is something wrong with you.

[reACTIONary]

157. Here is what I looked at most recently...

.... It comports with my recollections from the events. Maybe you could point out what I missed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-a-guide-to-the-trump-linked-data-firm-that-harvested-50-million-facebook-profiles-2018-3

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-hit-with-regulations-in-ftc-settlement-full-list-2019-7

[Scrivener7]

158. So here's what they did

I had a long description of it, but these tell the story better than I ever could. All I would add is that FB was perfectly aware of what CA was doing when they did this, because they already had done it for Ted Cruz. And don't forget that FB had a dedicated office in Trump Tower during the campaign to help them mine this data and give them as much access as they wanted. CA has changed their name since this, but are still working and no doubt working with FB under the new name.


Watch all three of these.

[reACTIONary]

160. Thanks, I'll take a look...

... if you come across any news analysis articles you are aware of, let me know. I'm more of a print person than a video person.

[stopdiggin]

141. any proof of this 'facilitating algorithm of extremism'

Other than just matching 'like to like' and 'similar interests' - as would be the same for everything from stock car racing - to cookie recipes - to music preference?

Yes - it's a world of big data - but any evidence that FB is actually pushing, sponsoring or endorsing extremist or hate content?

[Scrivener7]

146. Does no one know about Cambridge Analytica and what they did? This is shocking.

[stopdiggin]

148. again. not Facebook.

and again, the misconstruction that if FB allowed something - did not police or vet - then they were in fact advocating/promoting that thing. Nope.

[Scrivener7]

149. ABSOLUTELY Facebook! And if you think that was the only time it happened, you're nuts.

And if you think Facebook was not in it at every step of the way, you're nuts there too.

[stopdiggin]

162. well, I guess it's pretty obvious

that I don't believe that Cambridge and FB are one and the same - or that FB was there "every step of the way. And absent any evidence to the contrary ... I guess I'll just have to strap on my tinfoil hat.
----- -- -- -----

[Scrivener7]

165. .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15884676

[Ziggysmom]

29. VERO is better. It doesn't show ads and collect data for the same like FB.

People don't seem to care about losing privacy as long as their stupid apps are free. I don't get it

[Pinback]

42. Interesting. Thanks.

I find it bizarre that so many people a) think protecting their privacy is impossible and b) don’t care.

[DFW]

30. I sometimes wonder if Zuckerberg is even fully aware of the monster he created

I have a Facebook account, but I look at it maybe once a week to see what's on a couple of guitar forums I belong to and see if any of my far-flung relatives have posted new photos. Once every year, I get a note from someone somewhere (Denmark, Eastern France, e.g.) from my distant past that I never kept in touch with. I once even got a note from a former classmate in Spain who flunked out and was sent back to the States. Predictably, he became a Trumper, called me a hate-filled libbrul, and stopped contacting me (see? sometimes good behavior IS rewarded!).

But like Goethe's Sorcerer's Apprentice, Zuckerberg doesn't seem to be able to control the spirits he has summoned, or even if he is fully aware that he has done so. When his creation becomes a haven for enough evil, deliberate misinformation to disseminate that it can sway the outcome of an American presidential election, it is time to contemplate somehow going back to just being things like guitar forums. The current setup has made Zuckerberg a multi-billionaire, and since it was done in the free market, it won't be easy to just take it away from him. For that matter, I think the damage his creation has done would even warrant the Federal Government buying him out, letting him keep his billions, with the proviso that he not only never creates another such forum, but that he spend the rest of his active years helping the Federal Government detect and dismantle similar threats (both foreign and domestic, as the expression goes) in the future.

I remember a forum--don't even know if it still exists--called MySpace. I was on there briefly, discussing humor with people like Tia Carrere and (for about half a minute) Michelle Obama (pre-2008 election, of course). I never pursued it. In the 2008-2009 period, my free time was handed out in sporadic 15 minute segments, and I knew Obama would get elected anyway. But MySpace never became a monster. Maybe because Facebook was more user-friendly? For one reason or another, anyway, MySpace faded and Facebook became the dominant social forum in the world. In the meantime, it appears to have become an anti-social forum, and that it is time for a higher power--if one still exists!--to intervene.

Normally, I don't begrudge anyone their success. Not Beyoncé, not Oprah, not Bill Gates, not Warren Buffett, not even Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. I don't even believe in a wealth tax. If you made your money fairly and built a better mouse trap, or made more people laugh, or sing along with you, and paid your taxes on what you have (or will when you cash in your stock), then good for you. But when it comes to creating a potential evil that can not only destroy people's lives, but an entire country by wrecking its national psyche--THAT is summoning the spirits that you can never be rid of on your own, and that is when the Sorcerer must return to the den and make things right. The evil spirits must be once again banished to back from whence they came.

[7wo7rees]

96. Thank you, DFW. n/t

[stopdiggin]

138. "that it is time for a higher power--if one still exists!--to intervene."

And that, dear friend - is the sticky wicket as they are wont to say.

which governing body - given what set of tools and parameters (and agenda) - will filter what type of content - posted by which individuals and groups/movements -

and that would of course apply only to Facebook .. ?
Even if such were possible - it surely looks like a Pandora's box.

[Loki Liesmith]

31. Because it is a private business concern producing a legal product people seem to enjoy.

You could try and revoke its corporate charter but your case would be pretty weak.

[Sympthsical]

32. Then don't use it

I don't get the authoritarian impulse to monitor what people do and do not use, and what we should be "allowing" them to do on the Internet. As someone else noted, DU has a Facebook page that people here use.

Have you ever seen what Google does or what the founders and people in charge there have to say half the time? That whole "Don't be evil," thing went out the window ages ago. Now they track you, mess with search results, and generally funnel everything with their nice algorithms so you're engaged and they get paid. They also bend over backwards to accommodate authoritarian regimes around the world so they can make a buck.

The OP has misinformation itself. That whip story certainly galloped away from everyone yesterday. Apparently no one knows what horse's reins look like. Now people are running around thinking that border patrol officers have actual whips and are repeating that everywhere.

Believe me, I tried finding information on this - I didn't just take the Internet's word for it. I looked at the pictures and video available. I see horse reins in them (maybe lariats?). I grew up riding horses, so it was obvious to me. The closest thing I could find to even kind of sort of justify why someone was saying it was video of an officer spinning his reins in his hand while approaching someone. The refugee then steps backwards and falls in the creek. Looks like he slipped on a rock. The reins weren't even long enough to reach him. That is the closest thing I could tilt my head at and find near how the story started.

But the whip thing is not true. And no one needed Facebook for that one. Not using Facebook didn't keep misinformation out of the OP. Twitter does a damn good job all by itself.

Note: This does not mean the Haitians at the border aren't being treated inhumanely. It's awful and a terrible look for our country to boot. Just that there aren't whips here and that was one bizarre game of telephone everyone was playing.

At the end of the day, people need to do their own research. Nothing on the Internet should be taken at face value, no matter how you consume news and social media. You're never going to be able to outlaw laziness.

[Sherman A1]

67. + 1 Zillion

[stopdiggin]

139. good post.

And thank for pointing out that 'reliable news sources' were all caught up in the - "bizarre game of telephone everyone was playing."

Eggg-zactly! Great catch.

[brooklynite]

34. Perhaps the fact that you're getting worked up at 4:30 in the morning is the problem here...

[7wo7rees]

118. So nice to always be able to count on you Brookie! n/t

[ChazII]

36. I will continue to keep my FB account.

I keep it because of the grief support groups. I keep it because of the groups I joined for those who have a love one with brain tumor specifically glioblastoma brain tumor. I keep it because of neurofibromatosis. There is some good on FaceBook.

[berni_mccoy]

37. FB is just a symptom of a much larger problem

And that is a failure of leadership in the Republican Party. The politicians on the right could effectively stop the bullshit by speaking truth.

Yet they won’t. And as long as they won’t, and their mouthpieces like Fox continue to spread misinformation, then FB will simultaneously be viewed as evil by the right (for attempting to limit misinformation) and used by the right to spread it.

[Captain Stern]

41. Why stop at Facebook?

Why not just "pull the plug" on the whole Internet.?

Sure, it will inconvenience some folks, but everybody got along just fine without it at one time.

Surely, it's worth doing that if it means that somebody, somewhere, will be exposed to one less lie.

[CrackityJones75]

56. Exactly this.

Sometimes I think people are completely insane here.

[LeftInTX]

104. Yes

The internet itself is a huge source of instance news and a source of misinformation

[scrabblequeen40]

43. Irrelevance will come

I have faith that the platform is so nasty, it will drive people away. I used it and walking away got easier once I found other places to promote healthier more reasoned conversation.

Also, I thought I'd miss the connections. And I honestly don't. These people were not in my life before, and my life is no better/worse without them. Honest to God, towards the end, I was only using it to kill time.

[left-of-center2012]

44. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it

Many of us use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family.
I belong to several FB groups that have cartoons and humor.

I do not get my news on FB.

You are in control of what you see/read online.
If you don't like Facebook, don't use it

[Sherman A1]

69. +1000

[Tarc]

46. "Why is this stlll [sic] being allowed?" The answer is simple.

Unlike Trump and cronies, we're not fascists.

[Karma13612]

47. Yes, management of Facebook is bad, BUT

It’s the people who use Facebook for “evil” that are at fault as well.

Like a couple others on this thread, I use Facebook for everything from recipes to humor to hobbies (photography and fountain pens and bookbinding and junk journaling and collage and travel and animals, and…..).

Does there need to be oversight? Yes
Does there need to be control of disinformation? ABSOLUTELY!

But, if all the good that Facebook supports were to dry up, there would be even less connections between people than we have now. During COVID, it was especially helpful. Some of us don’t live in large thriving urban areas with tons of ways to connect. We rely on web-based connections. And Facebook is the core for that.

I would love to see a clean, well-monitored, politics-free, community-centric answer to Facebook.

When that happens I will switch.

Also, as an aside, when certain political sites provide opinion pieces but lack a comment section, I go to Facebook and search their Facebook page for the article so I can dispute their opinion with facts and questions. We are debating online thru Facebook because the websites want to keep the conversation only one way, and fill their reader’s heads with nonsense. I want to call them out on it.

[left-of-center2012]

51. "opinion pieces but lack a comment section"

My local TV news has an online page without a comment section.
So I go to their Facebook page which carries the same news and does have a section for comments.

[Karma13612]

144. Exactly what I said.

👍

[snowybirdie]

49. I use FB frequently

I keep in touch of my far flung family and friends. Wonderful communicating with them easily and spontaneously. As for political indoctrination, I don't see any. I'm careful to block it when I see it. I'd hate to lose this source of happiness and fun.

[left-of-center2012]

50. I agree 100% n/t

[XanaDUer2]

52. agreed nt

[Lancero]

54. DU still keeps around the FB like button on topics, in spite of how many times FB has shown...

To be pro-Republican.

Whats next, are we gonna get a like button for Gab? Or Parler?

[moondust]

55. Zuckenstein

I suspect when Zuck & Co. created their beast they were entirely consumed with the general idea and getting the programming right--and of course the money they could make--and totally naive about the content monster they were enabling on a global scale.

I, too, believe he/they bear significant responsibility for the embarrassingly unwise "Presidency" of TFG and the rise of misinformation and disinformation that have led to so much polarization and chaos and needlessly cost so many lives. Of course they aren't alone in that field. Remember Stormfront? As long as there is an Internet and freedom of speech it seems there will be bad people using it to mislead and do bad things.

What's the answer? A heavy-handed, totalitarian approach like China? No. Maybe Truth In Advertising laws could be adapted to cover not just consumers of "products" but consumers of information.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

58. I've never joined any social media thing, and only watched Fox News one time,

for about 10 minutes. DU is the only social media type thing I participate in.

I already know what fascists think, and parrot, before they do. They are ignorant, predatory, juvenile, dangerous, and driven by greed and hate. My only associations with them IRL are incidental, almost always in places of commerce.

Supporting their nasty misinformation/disinformation dissemination platforms by joining and engaging in them only further helps them spread their lies, deceit, and stupidity. I love DU because fascist bovine excrement is not permitted here.

[TreasonousBastard]

59. Because we can't. First problem is that it's just too damn big. Then...

you run into this annoying free speech thing. If we did manage to shut it down, what's stopping someone else from shutting down DU or Rachel Maddow?

The biggest problem is who decides "truth"?

Long before the internet, Hearst and his newspaper chain almost singlehandedly started the Spanish American War. Did we break up the Hearst empire?

Nope-- it has been long decided that occasional glitches are the price we pay for free expression.

[Ohio Joe]

60. You can pull the plug anytime you wish...

I never signed up for it myself so... I never plugged it in I guess. Yellow journalism has been around forever and is unlikely to be made illegal. About all you can do is not participate.

I know a mark for TFG who loves to spout his non-sense in the smoking area at work (and has since 2016) and each time he does, I'll ask 'Where did you hear about that?' As soon as FB is said I give the exaggerated and sarcastic 'ohhh, FB, it must be true'.

Everyone thinks FB is a fountain of bullshit, even the marks realize it but many (on both sides of the aisle) keep participating. I suggest you not participate.

Twitter is used a lot here on DU. Some like it, some don't. I like the funny memes that get posted, sometimes they are hilarious... I wish I came up with them sometimes. Things that get posted as 'news', I take with a grain of salt and see if I can verify. I do not take any of them as facts. I give them a default setting of 'questionable and need verification'.

I live outside Boulder Colorado so... While we have some crazies, it is nowhere near the level you have to deal with down there, not even close... I get it. Be assured though... Things like Abbott and the Border Control on horses with whips... These are beyond disturbing to every rational person no matter where they live. We are all aghast at it.

Take a deep breath... FB is not the problem, it is the current medium and removing it would only shift the problem to a new medium. It is the crazy that is the problem... I wish I knew how to fix it. Day by day we just have to deal with it as best we can.

[7wo7rees]

117. Thank you, OhioJoe.

We have never belonged or signed on to FB. We fought mightly over it. I argued I needed for my job (I worked with restaurants), Mr. 7wo7rees absolutely refused.

I appreciate and believe what you have written.

[MineralMan]

61. Because "WE" have no authority to do so.

I'm not sure what "we" you're talking about, though. It doesn't include me, I'm certain though.

We live in a Constitutional Republic. The First Amendment applies to you, me, and Facebook too.

Don't use Facebook. You are also free to do that.

[Captain Stern]

71. Good point. I'm glad I read this post.

The best part of it, is asking about who is 'we'.

That's simple, but profound.

Is 'we' us folks here on DU...or citizens in general, or people that don't use facebook?

[hunter]

63. I remove things I don't like from my personal universe whenever I can.

Television news and opinion was banished from my universe years ago, followed by commercial television. There's no cable, no satellite, no broadcast television in my world.

I recently added twitter to my personal media blacklist and this has improved the signal to noise ratio here on DU considerably.

If I stare at enough people like they are aliens from another planet when they start blathering on about some bullshit they saw on Fox News or Facebook maybe they'll take the hint.

[colsohlibgal]

68. Fine With Me

At this point it seems to be a vehicle to spread lies and misinformation along with whatever else it is.

The Internet has been the ultimate double edged sword.

[tritsofme]

70. Why is media we don't like "allowed"? Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?

[StarfishSaver]

72. Who is "we"? And what power do we have to "allow" Facebook to operate?

[themaguffin]

73. The Fairness Doctrine as it existed would not have applied to FOX

it was for over the air stations/networks which are regulated.

[GusBob]

78. Where I live and work, Facebook is THE media

In this remote mountain community here FB is the go-to for immediate and essential info such as:

school closures, road closures etc due to weather. All school and area events, social and things like deaths
dangerous wild animal activity ( bears, 'yotes and mountain lions)
dangerous domestic animal problems ( rabies, free range horses and angus cattle wandering dark roads)
rabies shots, vaccination and spaying clinics for domestic pets
emergencies such as fires, floods and water breaks, law enforcement activity
health information, there's this thing called COVID one may have heard of

Oh yeah and if your are worried about democracy, this area is solid blue. FB is used for voting info and gathering, and was instrumental in getting us to 100% census participation, and is being used to increase our vax rates, besides promoting the blue agendas

I laugh at these ban FB posts, they are totally futile

[FakeNoose]

81. I understand your point - FB is your main source of important news

You really can't avoid using Facebook, however you're not participating in the dissemination of political misinformation. So that means you're OK, am I right?

Well maybe, maybe not. Facebook doesn't really care if you're left or right, liberal or conservative. They make money every time their users see their ads. Some of their ads don't look like advertising at all, they look like news stories. Somebody (maybe it's a company, a person, or an organization) paid to have that item on Facebook because they're trying to influence you.

You might think you're reading "news" on Facebook when it's really a paid ad. It happens way more than people realize, and not just on Facebook. They were very smart at figuring out how to make money from it, and now it's happening all over the internet. In addition your name and personal info is being sold to Facebook's partners (advertisers) who will use it to target emailed ads directly to you.

We liberals have a problem with this, because it's very sneaky, and it's being done by ultra-rich far-right conservatives, and Facebook is happy to be their partner.

How many of us are willing to allow Facebook to make even more money by selling our info? That's the issue that is being discussed in these anti-Facebook rants.

I don't believe anyone questions your credibility as a liberal. You're a member of DU and that's good enough for me, my friend!

[GusBob]

97. Its a broader point actually, its not just me, its our community

To be clear, I'm talking about a remote mountainous Native American Reservation. The Natives use FB almost exclusively, there is no newspaper or TV or radio ( all forms of media which make money, BTW).

Consider COVID alone....FB was instrumental in disseminating important information in nearly real time concerning shutdowns, lockdowns, mandates, curfews, police checkpoints, vaccinations, travel rules and infection rates specific for this community and this community alone. No other media would be able to do so ( the Natives are not big on Twitter or IG)

[LeftInTX]

103. Does your local govt have twitter and do you have a twitter account?

That's my go to for up to the minute.

Reason is ask: Twitter is generally faster than facebook. Media prefers twitter for up to the minute.
For instance,, when I need info from the National Weather Service, I look to twitter.

Just a suggestion.

I am on facebook by the way.

ETA: Just saw that your community does not have a twitter account

[sarisataka]

80. Who is this "we" you speak of?

If it is we as individuals, don't use Facebook.

If it is we as in the People, i.e. the government, I would advise you to read the First Amendment.

[reACTIONary]

86. +100 nt

[lagomorph777]

85. Lots of DUers still defend Falsebook.

I'm sorry to say.

[NurseJackie]

98. And the internet. And newspapers. And radio. And TV. And Twitter. And books.

It's just another platform that's not all-good and not all-bad.

[lagomorph777]

101. You do understand that the Internet does not have a single owner or a single algorithm?

Falsebook is not in any way a nominally neutral platform like the Internet as a whole. One person decides how it will operate, based on maximizing profit. That would be OK, if maximizing profit didn't mean taking money from oligarchs to spread disinformation, and amplifying their message to cause maximum effect.

Twitter, is, of course every bit as terrible as Falsebook, for exactly the same reasons.

Radio, TV, and paper publishing all have some bad actors and some better actors. Like the Internet of which Falsebook and Twit are a part, individual platforms within those media vary. Equating the platform and its ownership and policies, with a distribution technology, is a false equivalence.

It should not be legal to profit from spreading lies that kill people. Regardless of the distribution technology.

[stopdiggin]

140. I would describe FB as 'nominally neutral' in its fundamentals

Amoral and 'maximizing' in all probability - but the platform itself is not nearly as 'vested' in agenda or political goals as Murdoch, or Sinclair, or many, many other 'sources.'

I think you fall into the familiar trap of equating FB allowing something - to it's actual promotion or endorsement. The bigger truth is that they don't care - as long as it is generating hits, and revenue. FB is not an evil monolith - so much as an amoral monolith.

Now we have to hash out whether being a monolith such as FB is a problem itself ...

[LuckyCharms]

87. I ditched it 4 years ago.

One of the better decisions I've made in my life.

[mnhtnbb]

88. Why don't you ask the Obamas, the Clintons, and the Bidens? Or Kamala Harris or Nancy Pelosi?

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=barack%20obama

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=michelle%20obama

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=hillary%20clinton

https://www.facebook.com/billclinton

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=joe%20biden

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=jill%20biden

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=kamala%20harris

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=nancy%20pelosi

It appears the leadership of the Democratic Party participates in Facebook. It doesn't bother me. You know, free speech and all that?

[womanofthehills]

95. 99.9% of posts on my Facebook page are grandkids, puppies, people's birthdays, trips, art shows

Of course I only have 218 Facebook friends but they include old friends from high school, art school, college, previous jobs, old neighborhoods, plus old boyfriends and women I used to be close friends with but we now live far from each other. 40 yrs ago I was a youth director of a community center for low income Hispanic kids in Albuquerque (Martineztown) and about 20 of those kids are my Facebook friends. The last time I saw most of those kids they were teens, and now they are posting photos with their grandkids on Facebook. Occasionally I get a political post and occasionally I post one, but I have pretty much stopped going there on Facebook. If a Republican friend posts something crazy, I might respond but mostly just ignore it.

[Kaleva]

99. Nothing is stopping you from taking personal action on all that you listed.

You are on Facebook by choice

Nobody is forcing you to watch Fox

DU has an auto trash by keyword function which would eliminate every thread here that mentions Trump in the title of the OP. Use it.

Don't stress about too much today and enjoy life as much as you can because climate change is going to really fuck your life up tomorrow. Especially sine you live in Texas.

[Treefrog]

100. Why does no one complain about Twitter?

Seems to be just as bad, if not worse.

People seem silent on this. Wonder why?

[LeftInTX]

105. I know. I don't get it.

You can have numerous profiles on twitter..and they can be fake.

It is against FB TOS to have more than one account. (Although people do) However, you can be locked out if they catch you trying to create another account with the same email or phone number.

I have two twitter profiles: One of where I'm myself and another where I'm incognito.

[Treefrog]

106. Lol, if Twitter was gone, we'd lose half our daily threads here.

[Sympthsical]

115. This is patently untrue

It’d be at least three quarters

[Treefrog]

116. Lol.

I stand corrected.

And some would be left completely without anything to post at all.

[Pinback]

108. "Facebook (and Google) made money from dangerous 'abortion reversal' ads that targeted teens

and were seen 18.4 million times"
- Business Insider, Sept. 15, 2021
(Note: I added the "and Google" to the BI headline)

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-profits-from-abortion-reversal-ads-seen-184-million-times-2021-9
By Hannah Towey

Big Tech companies Facebook and Google profited from "abortion reversal" advertisements seen by millions, according to a new report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

So-called abortion reversal pills, which are sold as an unverified method to reverse the effects of drugs taken to begin a medical abortion, are deemed unsafe and unscientific by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The only credible study on the medication was ended after participants experienced potentially fatal bleeding. (emphasis mine)

Abortion reversal ads on Facebook were seen 18.4 million times since January 2020, according to the report. Due in part to a Facebook feature that allows advertisers to target minors age 13 to 17, the ads were viewed by teen users 700,000 times.

This is despite Facebook's policy banning ads that promote "inappropriate, illegal, or unsafe" products and services to minors. In total, the platform has accepted up to $140,667 from abortion reversal ads since the start of 2020, the report says.

More at Business Insider link above.

Also see the original from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, an international not-for-profit NGO with offices in London and Washington DC, which "seeks to disrupt the architecture of online hate and misinformation":

"Endangering Women for Profit: How Facebook and Google sell ad space for dangerous medical misinformation about so-called abortion 'reversals'" (Sept. 13, 2021) --
https://252f2edd-1c8b-49f5-9bb2-cb57bb47e4ba.filesusr.com/ugd/f4d9b9_87b1482552a140a880d86f7d2d2e6f2a.pdf

[mcar]

113. A little something called the 1st Amendment

[tritsofme]

123. Who can be bothered by such quaint nuisances?

[LanternWaste]

126. Any practical, legal methods on how that could be achieved?

[SYFROYH]

132. FB could be regulated more, but I get a lot of value from it.

I’ve benefited from a lot of relations that came out of using FB

[Zeitghost]

133. It truly baffles me

when people don't understand that giving the government the power to regulate political speech on the internet is a horrible idea that would someday be used by the fascists on the right. Anti-censorship used to be one of the hallmarks of a card carrying lefty not all that long ago.

[stopdiggin]

142. indeed. it demonstrates a serious lack of understanding

(or perhaps thought or consideration would describe it more accurately)
In any case - it's sort of disappointing - not to mention a little bit scary.
----- -----

[cadoman]

135. I'd be happy to see both Facebook and Twitter links removed [nt]

[fescuerescue]

150. Because Facebook isn't ilegal

And there isn't the political will to revoke the 1st amendment which would make it possible to ban it.

[GusBob]

154. I see the OP has been edited to add "We the people"

Irony can be pretty ironic

it does appear as if an erosion of our 1A protections is being proposed. either that or this is satire

[Treefrog]

159. Good catch!

[reACTIONary]

161. I think it's the former....

... there has been very strong trend against 1A here for some time. I think there is a lot of naivety about the consequences of eroding 1A. They seem to think it would Us in control, not Them.

[Karma13612]

155. Just an aside:

For those DU’rs who have never looked at FB, it might be good for you to actually see how it works. Facebook as an entity does not post Content. It acts as a bulletin board on which entities post content. And we can all have our own section of the bulletin board.

Individuals and entities (Schools, Chambers of Commerce, Government organizations, Politicians, Companies, Non-Profits, any entity you can think of really) put up posts on the Bulletin Board. Entities and individuals can choose to follow these posts. In this fashion, they are notified whenever said entities or individuals post things to the bulletin board. In a way, it’s like if you go to the local deli and stand there search the whole bulletin board for information from your friend. By ‘following’ the entity, you don’t need to spend all day searching the board. It conveniently is in your “feed” of posts.

FB needs to do a better job of weeding out the crap, and lies and misinformation. For sure. But, people who have FB accounts are in complete control of what is in their feed. If the feed starts showing crap you didn’t signup for, then they can right click and ask to not get that content anymore. It’s like junk mail and spam. You can control it.

FB has to do better. I don’t think they should be allowed to let stuff fill our Feed which we didn’t “follow” or “like” . Every week or so, when I start to see crap in my feed, I right click and say “irrelevant” and “ block the content” from my feed.

FB has issues for sure, but as I said earlier, it is a lifeline for many, including me. But, I am a very discerning user. I have the NY Times in my feed, but I know that a lot of their content is very conservative. Same with WAPO. I read with a grain of salt. Although they are linking to their news articles which have a paywall. I personally think that if they post an article to their FB page, they should eliminate the paywall. Otherwise you have people commenting on FB about things in an article they may not be able to read. STUPID STUPID STUPID.

OK, so I know many might put me on ignore. But, we need Facebook. Just needs to be better regulated as to the crap they allow to be ‘tacked on your section of bulletin board”.

[Meowmee]

163. FB and others should be regulated however possible

To stop allowing the misinformation and lies. That has begun on some level but not on a large enough scale yet and it is self regulation as far as I am aware. But the real problem are the people- fascists, idiots and so on pushing it and believing it. Fox and other similar networks are a larger issue imo.

[ripcord]

164. I'm trying to figure out how Facebook would be shut down